The main title of this essay is ‘Human
Rights and Islam’, which signals some assumptions. I have not selected
‘Human Rights in Islam’ because it depicts a certain type of apologetic
behaviour. I have even resisted the temptation of using ‘Islam and Human
Rights’, which, by placing Islam before the human rights in contemporary
sense becomes historically questionable. This essay, in fact, is in part
a summary of the uneasy relationship between religion, especially Islam,
and human rights as explicated by some contemporary thinkers and human
rights activists. The essay summarizes this relationship from both theoretical
and practical perspectives and the questions pertaining to the status of
women in Muslim society gets special attention. The overarching question
behind this inquiry has been ‘Can religion contribute to building a culture
of human rights?’ by the delineation of some points of convergence and
divergence between ‘Human Rights’ and ‘Islam’.
Genie of Human Rights
The genie of the concept of human
rights in the contemporary sense is the belief in the sacredness of human
personality (Perry 1998:2). This sacredness is supposedly universal and
absolute at ideal and conceptual levels, at least and it has some consequences,
which means that certain choices should be made for all human beings and
certain choices should be rejected for any human being (Ibid:5). ‘The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights’ (UDHR-1948), ‘International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights’ (ICCPR-1976), and ‘International Covenant on Economic,
Social, and Cultural Rights’ (ICESC-1976) -- the three documents constituting
‘The International Bill of Human Rights’-- commonly speak of ‘human dignity’
as something which should be respected in its own right. There is also
the ‘Declaration on Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination
Based on Religion or Belief’, which has not become a part of the International
Bill so far. On the grounds of ‘sacredness’ and ‘dignity’, a direct epistemological
link can be established between human rights and religion, as religion,
in Durkheimian sense (Marshall 1998:575), is primarily concerned with the
idea of sacredness. Moreover by giving references to Biblical teachings
like ‘love on another’ and ‘brother/sister-hood’, Perry has argued for
an elaborate relationship between the concept of equality as expounded
in the idea of human rights and religion; equality cannot be assumed unless
we assume that all human beings belong to the same origin (1998:13). Obviously
such teachings are also mentioned in holy scriptures like the Qur’an,
which lays emphasis on the belief that all human beings were created from
Adam and Eve, and in this sense, tied in a natural and permanent ‘brother/sister-hood’
or a family (The Qur’an, 49:13). Thus this could become an important
point of convergence between human rights and religion.
Let me now turn the idea of sacred
on its head. It is noted that in most of modern sociological interpretations
of religion, God and other-worldliness -- the pillars of belief in religion
in traditional sense -- are absent or avoided explicitly. Thus we hear
about ‘rituals’, ‘symbols’, ‘reverence or awe’, and of course ‘community
of believers’ (Gidden 1997:436) but we do not hear about God or the other
world. This is not surprising, then, that ‘references to God, Nature and
even human nature were deleted from the drafts of the 1948 UDHR shortly
before its adoption’ (Ombres 1992, cited in Perry 1998:110). Thus the idea
of association between sacredness and awe or reverence and belief in God
is replaced with belief in sacredness and dignity of human personality
which becomes the object of reverence, and therefore society becomes sacred.
Religion, in the traditional sense, becomes marginalized in the human rights
discourse. It seems that the advice of Nietzsche, who is essentially bracketed
with ‘God is dead’, for all practical and understandable reasons, has been
shelved, and who asserts that if Christian God is given up, Christian morality
should be given up too, as former is the origin of latter. Thus if the
‘God-man is nothing more than an illusion, the same thing is true of the
idea that every individual possesses incalculable worth’ (read ‘inherent
sacredness/ dignity’) (Tinder 1989, cited in Ibid:23, emphasis added).
Thus the flip side of a convergence between religion and human rights is
actually a deep divergence.
After establishing this ambivalence
of religion for human rights, I now turn to some central dialectics of
human rights discourse. Broadly speaking, we can consider three dichotomies,
without considering them essentially as ‘ideal types’. Firstly, I mention
individualism/collectivism. Human Rights, as a modern phenomenon, are based
upon the premise that every individual has the right to express his or
her opinion, belief and expression in all the societal relationships. Thus
an individual can adopt or leave a religion, marry with his own choice,
live and earn by his own free will. This individualism is contrasted with
collectivism or communitarianism, which is supposedly a pre-modern phenomenon
common to all religions (Mayer, 1999:56). But it is conveniently ignored
that the concept of human rights is not absolutely individualistic, as
it conditions the expression of individualism with certain collectivist
arguments like ‘public health’, ‘public moral’, ‘public order’ etc (Perry,
1998:90). For example, Article 19(3) of ICCPR, following 19(2) (which allows
freedom of expression), says: ‘The exercise of the rights …may therefore
be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be as are provided
by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations
of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order
(ordre public), or of public health or morals.’ What is a public moral
or what is necessary is left imprecise and open to interpretation of a
situation to ‘individual’ member-states. We conclude, therefore, that human
rights do not grant individual freedom in an absolute manner, but explicitly
tie these rights with certain identifiable conditions. The supposedly religious
objection on human rights for being too individualistic and far too less
collectivist becomes feeble, if not invalid and therefore an obvious point
of divergence becomes a point of convergence.
Here it is pertinent to ask what is
wrong with individualism as such and is individualism only a legacy of
Enlightenment? It is grossly unfair to fail acknowledging the role that
human rights concepts have played in the empowerment of the individual,
which helps in the transformation of the authoritarian rule into the democratic
one and in advancing a culture of accountability (Muzaffar 1996:268). However,
let me record here something, which Muzaffar does not mention in his valid
appreciation of human rights in the empowerment of the individual, and
which is the second part of my question: Is the tradition of ‘individualism’
only a legacy of Eurocentric Enlightenment? This semblance overlooks such
tradition of ‘heresy’, in Muslim history. Interestingly, all the four major
founders of Sunni Islam i.e. Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Hanbal, Imam
Malik, and Imam Shafi‘i, were jailed and punished frequently
for their independent opinions against the ‘Islamic’ rulers and religious
establishment of their age. As a matter of record, at least three of these
Imams took their last breath while in prison.
We also note the more violent expression,
and subsequently the execution of characters like Mansoor Hallaj (9th century)
and many other Sufi thinkers, who demonstrated their ‘right’ of freedom
against all odds and had to bear grave consequences for their boldness.
In fact, the tradition of individualism in Sufism has also been acknowledged
by some contemporary Western thinkers like Mayer (1999:43). One can also
notice fully developed schools of thought as collective dissidents like
Kharijites (7th century) and Mutazilites (9th century), which challenged
the then orthodoxy, and subsequently were eliminated as schools by the
state and conservative religious elements but continued and reappeared
in individuals like Farabi (d: 950 AD) and Ibn Rushd (d: 1198 AD).
This glorious tradition is as important and influential as of the French
intellectuals in the French revolution; therefore, if the assertion and
determination of individuals is important in establishing a culture of
human rights, then ample historical precedents exists before and beyond
the European civilization. Fortunately, Muslim society can still produce
some, though not really tolerate, ‘heretical’ thinkers like Abdullah
Na‘im and Nasr Abu Zayd, both in exile though, while the latter
was declared apostate by Egyptian ‘secular’ courts. Another author Bulliet
asserts that the Islamic worldview is predicated on the individual ‘intrinsically
enjoy[ing] the freedom to choose his or her authoritative definition of
Islam, whether it be grounded in law, or in practice of a pious or political
leader, or in the traditional usage of his or her community’, (cited in
Cooke and Lawrence 1996:318).
Another dichotomy exists in the case
of universalism/relativism. The very term ‘Universal’ in UDHR becomes misleading
when we see that the exercise of these universal rights is coupled with
some permissible derogation of these laws related with the particular situation
of a country. Though, what is ‘necessary’ as a precondition for this derogation
remains highly controversial, UDHR allows its signatories ie. states to
interpret the situation. It becomes more serious and dramatic if a situation
is declared a ‘public emergency’, which allows the states to annul fundamental
human rights on legitimate reasons, as public emergency has been acknowledged
as a legitimate reason for derogation (ICCPR, Article 4). In this context,
the discussion on ‘rights’ is reduced to ‘fundamental rights’, and thus
space for controversies and ambiguities widens. Acknowledgement of such
situations in the Human Rights concept, however further weakens the religious
argument that UDHR does not respect particularities as many states, especially
Muslim states, put forward religious arguments for not respecting certain
universal rights such as freedom of religion or belief. Instead of invoking
religious arguments or associated public morals, which may not be equally
acceptable to the world, Muslim states should consider if a particular
act of any person or group is hazardous for public order, a ‘universally’
valid reason for annulment of basic human rights.
My third ‘ideal type’ is rights/responsibilities,
which is built upon the tension between ‘rights’ and ‘responsibilities’
as two distinct types of human behaviour. Many critics of UDHR, especially
Muslim scholars, argue that the whole idea of UDHR is ‘un-Islamic’, because
Islam stresses on responsibilities and not on rights. Here, of course,
I am placing the apologist argument aside, which reminds us of the old
dichotomy between the rights of Allah and the rights of people. This is
apologist because it takes strain in proving that the idea of ‘human rights’
in Islamic discourse existed much before UDHR was signed. My contention
is that no doubt this terminology existed but in almost the opposite sense
of the contemporary understanding of human rights. For example, Islamic
discourse emphasizes on certain Haququ’l-‘Ibad (Rights of People)
such as rights of the neighbour, fellow traveller, parent, wife, children
etc. For example, one eminent woman’s rights activist notes that the Qur’an
puts
great emphasis on the ‘right to justice’ (Hassan 1996: 372). I have no
problem as far as the importance of justice is concerned in the
Qur’an,
but my point is that the verse being used as a warrant for this argument
says: ‘Be just!’ (5:8), which is essentially an instruction, and not a
question of right for Muslims. Instead of twisting the original and common
sense purpose of Qur’anic injunction, Muslim scholars may do well
by insisting upon the alternative discourse, but this is a digression.
It should now become obvious that
these ‘rights’ are in fact ‘responsibilities’ of the individual, which
he owes to others, like the one he owes to Allah. Thus, nobility aside,
the responsibility concept is not ‘right’ as far as human rights are concerned
and this argument is not only apologetic but also incorrect. There are
some more serious efforts, which have been made by contemporary Muslim
scholars, to which I will refer shortly. For now, I want to point out that
the UDHR and its accompanying documents are not devoid of the idea of duties
and responsibility. For example, what I left in an earlier quotation from
ICCPR was this: ‘The exercise of rights provided for in paragraph 2 (i.e.
19(2)) of this article carries special duties and responsibilities’ (ICCPR,
Article 19(3), emphasis and parenthesis added). Therefore, the religious
argument declaring Human Rights devoid of responsibility loses its ground.
The difference between responsibilities and rights is also reflected in
an interview by a famous Iranian human rights activist and scholar, Soroush,
who clearly states that ‘secularism is assertion of ‘rights’ as opposed
to the traditional language of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) which talks
about obligations’ (in Noor, forthcoming). Soroush flips the coin in an
interesting way by further saying that in societies where Muslims enjoy
majority, it is common to say that it is our duty to love and obey God,
but where Muslims are a minority community, they say it is our ‘right’
to follow our religion (Ibid). This political expediency is clearly articulated
by Asghar Ali Engineer, who lives and works in India where the world’s
largest Muslim minority exists. For Engineer, one of the most attractive
features of secularism is pluralism with equal rights for all without religious
or any other kind of discrimination (Ibid.) Thus the boundary between responsibility
and right is further blurred leaving all kind of space for convergence
and divergence.
At this point, it is pertinent to
mention an international attempt to emphasize responsibilities outside
the domain of religion. I refer to the proposed Universal Declaration of
Human Responsibilities prepared in September 1997 by some statesmen with
the aim of getting this document endorsed by the United Nations General
Assembly on the occasion of fiftieth anniversary of UDHR on 10 December
1948. This document did not get much attention, not to talk about endorsement,
and was criticized for its ambiguous and soft terms, its apparent similarities
with UDHR and its lack of understanding of the implications of globalization
for human rights (Boven 1998:73). My purpose of mentioning this experiment
here is to remind ourselves that the notion and concern of responsibility
is not essentially a religious concern and some kind of common ethical
standard can be referred as criteria. In any case, as this attempt has
shown, the emphasis on responsibility overlooks the historical context
in which UDHR was presented: forties was the decade which witnessed culmination
of many totalitarian regimes like those of Hitler and Mussolini, which
were essentially built upon the belief that every individual has some duty
towards the state for nation-building and economic development.
The Islamist response to UDHR
A comprehensive response from Muslim
thinkers to UDHR is the UDHIR (Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights)
of (1981) published under Islamic Council of Europe, which is largely based
on Mawdudi’s idea on Human Rights in Islam (Cooke and Lawrence 1996:322).
Though, it has been developed on lines similar to its ‘secular’ antecedent,
in its spirit, UIDHR remains highly ‘religious’. Mayer has identified interesting
differences between its Arabic and English version, and has shown that
the former version is more explicit in preserving the traditional concept
of religious freedom and the latter version appears more moderate (Mayer
1999:161). Its article 12(a) on the ‘Right to Freedom of Belief, Thought
and Speech’ says: ‘Everyone may think, believe and express his ideas and
beliefs without interference or opposition from anyone as long as he obeys
the limits set by the Shari#‘ah. It is not permitted to spread falsehood
or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking
the Islamic community’. Its essentialist language can be compared with
the Qur’anic injunction:
There shall be no compulsion in the religion.
(2:256).
As a matter of fact, the standards set
in UIDHR in this case go well beyond the conventional norms of public safety
and public moral. What is falsehood for one party can conveniently be truth
for another and therefore a lot in the UIDHR is left open to the will of
Muslim states, which more often than not are un-democratic and authoritarian.
One of the most sensitive and controversial
human rights issues is the status of women in Muslim society. Here again,
extremes can be observed by either totally rejecting the Islamist discourse
on allegations of discrimination based on sex, or by absolute submission
to the Qur’an in the matter of women rights. Issues pertaining to
equality between man and woman in general, law of inheritance, relative
ease of the right to divorce for men, law of evidence and injunctions related
with modesty in dress and public roles have been discussed widely. Though
satisfactory answers to these burning questions are yet to develop and
establish in the larger Muslim thought, one important historical context
should be noted, which serves as a useful point of caution before taking
extreme positions. The Qur’an was revealed in the 7th century Arabia,
which by no means was a civilized society especially before Islam. The
legal rights of women to inheritance in the property was a revolution in
that context, which remained superior to the status of women till 19th
century Europe (Cooke and Lawrence 1996:324). Similar arguments can be
presented for other supposedly gender-based discrimination allegedly associated
with the Qur’an. So far so good. But what does it mean for contemporary
Muslim women? When shall a revolution come to her doorstep?
Attempts have been made to reconcile
the apparent inequalities between men and women present in the scripture.
For example, the law of evidence, which presupposes that the evidence of
two women will be equal to that of one man, has been reinterpreted by a
modern thinker, Sachedina, who has argued that this difference was kept
because of literacy and two women were called for as the level of literacy
was especially low among women of the Arab society. So, in case of evidence,
if they cannot produce anything in writing, the two can do it verbally
and jointly (Ibid:325). How modern this interpretation may seem, it is
debatable for a generalization for law of evidence as it put forwards literacy
as a principle criteria for being able to give evidence, which for law,
is not a requirement. Another eminent feminist Riffat Hassan has done some
research into the idea of equality between man and woman as understood
through the Qur’a#n. She has presented intelligible religious arguments
proving that both Adam and Eve were created as separate human beings, and
likewise both of them (and not Eve alone) were enticed by Satan to eat
from the tree (Hassan 1998:383). Hassan, while proving equality through
her exegesis, does not mention her opinion about more explicit issues like
the law of inheritance, the law of evidence, or polygamy, albeit conditionally.
Another famous feminist Nawal Al-Saadawi from Egypt remains skeptical of
the Qur’a#nic verse stating the story of repentance of Adam, and questions
as if God has not forgiven Eve since then! (Saadawi 1998: 270). It should
be noted here that Saadawi has been recently alleged of apostasy by conservative
circles of Egypt and has been jailed for her own safety concerns. Therefore,
the overall question of women’s rights remains a bone of contention for
all, and it is likely to remain so in the near future. The greatest impediment
towards a more feminist interpretation of feminist issues in the Islamist
discourse is almost an absence of women interpreters of traditional sources
of Islamic law in the entire Muslim history. Establishment of women’s Shari#‘ah
college in Qum, Iran recently is an interesting development in this regard
(Cooke and Lawrence 1996: 324).
So far we have been talking in theoretical
framework. If we enter the framework of practice, obviously, new kinds
of convergence and divergence will emerge. The birthplace of human rights
in contemporary sense is the West, which also happens to be the birthplace
of secularism and in fact, both human rights and secularism are flip sides
of the same coin: one cannot exist without the other -- it is supposed.
But we also notice that the gravest crimes against human rights associated
with freedom to live have been committed in or inspired by the West. Here
I refer to the Holocaust and Soviet Marxism-Leninism in the first half
of this century and then Rwanda and Bosnia in the latter half. Especially,
the first two are built on supposedly modern and secular structure, but
subsequent events have shown that secularism, as a principle alone, does
not guarantee preservation of human rights (An-Naim, forthcoming). Similarly,
a Muslim rule, such as the Mughal empire in Indian sub-continent and the
Andulus Sultanate does not mean out-right discrimination: Muslims in hundreds
of years of constant rule in these areas demonstrated pluralism and allowed
complete freedom to people from other religions -- Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists
in the former and Jews in the latter case. On the other hand, one cannot
lose sight of historical facts like the execution of heretical sects like
Kharijites (7th century AD) and Mutazilites (9th century AD) in Muslim
history and the atrocious institution of Inquisition under Catholic Church.
Therefore, we cannot identify either secularism or religion as guarantor
and oppressor of human rights, or otherwise, as a general rule, though
recent historical developments, especially in the field of media and information
and communication technology (ICT) and the prevalent pluralistic democratic
model have provided far more freedom of expression in the West.
In recent history also, evidence can
be produced for proving any case. While Europe was discovering the principles
of liberty, fraternity, and equality, it was expanding its empire through
colonial rule to Africa, Asia and South America. These colonial rules,
without any exception, were directed at exploitation of domestic resources
or development of local market to put in another way and the concern like
right to self-determination, right to economic freedom etc was hardly given
serious attention. Similarly, in the post-colonial era, economic and national
interests of the Western nations superseded the universal interests in
human rights. For example, since 1945, United States has supported more
authoritarian or military regimes than democratic ones despite its professed
claims in human rights (Muzaffar 1996:270). Likewise, it should be acknowledged
that in most Muslim countries -- many non-Muslim countries not precluded
here. The democratic institutions are either malfunctioning or not present.
Thus they have become an impediment in the establishment of a culture of
human rights in any sense. Both in the cases of democratic or authoritative
governments, dismal rule of law is perhaps the single most serious challenge
for human rights. The situation becomes grave when Islam is described as
a scape goat for the worst kind of oppressions. This happens at the state
level, when, for example, Pakistan declares Ahmadis a non-Muslim minority,
and at the level of community, when ‘honour-killings’ are justified on
religious grounds. In both cases, however, as has been argued widely, association
with religion is misleading and at best, simplistic as many political and
cultural reasons can be traced in the backstage of what appear as religiously
motivated actions.
Conclusion
I have tried to show various points
of convergence and divergence between Human Rights and Islam, by reinforcing
my arguments both with theoretical accounts and historical evidences. Relationship
between the two remains highly complicated: where the apparently religious
idea of sacredness may become non-religious, the apparently secular assertion
of freedom of religion or belief may become highly religious. Similarly,
one may note that the UDHR, with all its prose coloured with nobility and
exhortation, almost speaks like a religious doctrine. Thus in my view,
the tension between human rights and Islam is inherent and permanent, though
not entirely harmful for the parties involved. I do not favour the arm-twisting
efforts of some modern Muslim jurists trying to adapt the script to prove
human rights in Islam. Re-interpretation is a welcome sign and it should
be continued at all risks, but Muslims should remain watchful to the fact
that human rights is a twentieth century phenomenon and like any other
human invention, liable to change. Hence, to hook divine injunctions with
human rights is inherently unstable and is also liable to change. Similarly,
I do not favour the apparent prophetic language of UDHR, as if these universal
claims shall hold forever, and for everybody, everywhere.
I find solace in An-Naim’s argument
calling for synergy and interdependence between religion and secularism,
as I cannot divest myself of the moral guidance provided by religion and
neither can I forgo the right to live in a pluralistic society, as envisioned
by secularism. The ideal situation, for a religious mindset, would be that
the conditions allowing pluralism and freedom of thought exist under a
religious framework once again in Muslim history, but unless that begins
to take some shape, the call for synergy is realistic and desirable. It
may not resolve intellectual inquiries by any means, but it will help in
creating a culture of peace -- an essential end to the culture of human
Rights and also an important precondition for intellectual freedom.
Selected Bibliography
-- An-Naim, Abdullahi (forthcoming)
ISIM
Working Paper, (ed.) Farish A. Noor, Leiden.
-- Boven, Theo Van, 1998, A Universal
Declaration of Human Responsibilities? in Barend van der Heijden and
Bahia Tahzib-lie (Eds.) Reflections on the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: 73-79
-- Cooke, Miriam and Lawrence, Bruce
B., 1996, Muslim Women between Human Rights and Islamic Norms, in
Irene Bloom, J. Paul Martin and Wayne L. Proudfoot (eds.) Religious Diversity
and Human Rights, Columbia University Press, New York: 313-331
-- Engineer, Asghar Ali (forthcoming)
ISIM
Working Paper, (ed.) Farish A. Noor, Leiden.
-- Gidden Anthony, 1997, Sociology,
Polity Press, London: 434-468
-- Hassan, Riffat, 1996, Rights
of Women within Islamic Communities, in John Witte, Jr. and Johan D.
van der Vyver (eds.) Religious Human Rights in Global Perspectives: Religious
Perspectives, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague: 361-386
-- Marshall, Gordon, 1998 Oxford
Dictionary of Sociology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
-- Mayer, Ann Elizabeth, 1999, Islam
and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics, Westview Press, Colorado.
-- Muzaffar, Chandra, 1996, Towards
Human Dignity, in Human Wrongs, proceedings of an international conference
on ‘Rethinking Human Rights’ in Kuala Lumpur, JUST World Trust, Penang:
268-275
-- Perry, Michael J., 1998 The
idea of Human Rights: Four Inquiries, Oxford University Press, New
York.
-- Saadawi, Nawal El, 1998, The
Right to Life in Barend van der Heijden and Bahia Tahzib-lie (Eds.)
Reflections on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers: 268-273
-- Soroush, Abdul Karim, (forthcoming)
ISIM
Working Paper, (ed.) Farish A. Noor, Leiden.
|